RANGEL et al. V. FEUILLE et al.

The mere statement of the facts in evidence would seem to show that there was sufficient evidence to justify the verdict but the defendaAt insists that there was no evidence of the identity of the money found in defendant's possession with that alleged to have been stolen.
It is true as a proposition of law that where money has been stolen and money similar in kind is found in a defendant's possession soon after the theft, identity of the latter with the stolen money must be proved before conviction can properly be predicated upon such possession. But the proof of identity may be circumstantial, and when the amount, kind, and denomination of money correspond and access was proved, as in the case at bar, the identity is sufficiently established.
This court has held many times that it is not its province to determine the weight of evidence and that on questions of fact alone it will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court unless that judgment appears to be manifestly against the weight of evidence. In the case at bar there was evidence to sustain the judgment of the court below.
Affirmed.
RANGEL et al. versus FEUILLE et al.
No. 132. Argued May 20, 1914. Decided June 27, 1914.
INJUNCTION. APPEAL.
When the circumstances which give rise to the granting of a preliminary injunction by the trial court have, pending appeal, ceased to exist, the same
will be dissolved on appeal.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit; Hon. William H. Jackson, Judge.
The facts appear in the opinion.
Frank Feuille, William K. Jackson, and Charles R. Williams, for appellants. Hinckley and Ganson, for appellees.
BROWN, J. This appeal is from an interlocutory decree of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, enjoining the appellants, pendente lite, from taking for governmental use certain lands and buildings occupied by and claimed to be owned by the respondents.

317